Richard Cox, is 9/11 Deeply Spiritual? |428|

I highlighted an area i find to be quite believable due in part that the American government has done far worse to people abroad, as opposed to what is happening here in the states with numerous instances where the mass populace of the country are either in prison, poverty or sickly. Im not the least bit shocked that you can have a decent amount of people within our own government (which is quite expansive and multi-faceted)that could seemingly pull off an operation like 9/11. Look at how many CIA operatives that were working inside Alec Station that knew of two Al Qaeda operatives living inside the United States and allowed them to live openly without telling anyone. Thats just a small example.

Adam,
Have you ever encountered felons? For the most part, they need to be in prison. Also, the laws they broke that got them incarcerated, when not prohibitions against true wrong doings, like murder, armed robbery, fraud, car theft, etc, are laws established at under pressure from do gooder citizens. It's not as if "the govt" is just randomly creating laws so they can catch people and lock them up.

Are you trying to say that the US govt is deliberately making people sick? Absurd. Look at all the obese slobs sticking junk food in their faces. There's an obesity epidemic. Huge proportions of money spent on healthcare goes to keeping these people going. Are you saying that the govt forces large amounts of junk food down these peoples' gullets?

The US govt makes it citizens poor? What, are you a communist? The US is the wealthiest country on earth. Even the poorest American enjoys a standard of living that is higher than what 90%+ people in the world have to do with. Gee whiz, sorry it's not perfect for everyone. Apparently designing something better isn't so easy based on living standards all over the world.

What terrible atrocities has the US govt inflicted on other countries? You mean in times of war? Well, yeah, that's what war is. Once again, the civilians wanted that. The military didn't just up and do it on their own. How is fighting a war - whether justified or not - on foreign soil the same as attacking US citizens on US soil? You clearly have no experience in the military or the intelligence community; nor do you know people that really do.

You need to get out more. You might end up appreciating what we have here in America a bit more.
 
Last edited:
Eric, the weird thing is that a lot of that to which you object is that to which the left also objects! We just see it through different lenses according to our predilections. For example, you worry about an expanded power based in a handshake between the State and the Corporation; a power which sees all and decides all; which has the omnipotence to deprive you (anybody) of a job and social identity; which picks on first one identity (Christians), then another (Muslims) with the eventual aim of repressing all - all of these are very much concerns of the modern left! None of us - left or right - wants to see our freedom taken from us in these ways. Those whom you accuse of being "perfectly ok with this arrangement" are not those on this forum whom you think are "useful idiots": we are not useful idiots; we see the same global power plays and seek to resist them to the same extent that you do. We would do best to join forces against a common enemy rather than to continue arguing amongst ourselves!

The problem is that while we may see some things in a similar light, your commie solutions will make it worse. The answer isn't more govt, it's less - and more freedom and independence. But then the losers and the weak can't hack it. In their name you bring the govt, which grows and control us. Freedom v security is the crux of the issue.

What Euros and Brits fail to understand is that America is unique in its basic understanding of the relationship between citizens and govt. America is founded on the unique idea that citizens hold the power and only lend specific and limited rights to the govt. In the rest of the world, the govt lends limited rights to the citizens.

It's you lefties that want to have the govt eliminate poverty, provide healthcare, eradicate "hate", etc. You can't hack freedom and you won't allow the rest of us to enjoy it either.
 
The answer isn't more govt, it's less - and more freedom and independence.

OK, but how does this differentiate us in specifics? Any group of individuals who cooperate are going to need some sort of means of cooperating - and if we don't call that "government", then what are we to call it?
 
Sorry, that was a poor response. Let me try again: any group of individuals who cooperates is going to need some means of taking care of the less fortunate. However they do that, it will generally be cooperatively, and if we are not to refer to that as "governance", then how are we to refer to it, and will it be meaningfully different? In other words, aren't we *all*, not matter our left or right stripes, ultimately about helping everybody *cooperatively*?
 
Sorry, that was a poor response. Let me try again: any group of individuals who cooperates is going to need some means of taking care of the less fortunate. However they do that, it will generally be cooperatively, and if we are not to refer to that as "governance", then how are we to refer to it, and will it be meaningfully different? In other words, aren't we *all*, not matter our left or right stripes, ultimately about helping everybody *cooperatively*?

Laird,
I think this is an age old problem and there are no easy answers.

First, there is the issue of defining who is unable to help themselves and needs assistance.

Second, there is a spiritual issue involved on both side of that coin. Helping others/service to others can be very good for the person doing the service. Receiving service obviously is very good for those who truly need it. However, it is also very damaging to receivers that don't truly need it. It s also damaging to the giver if the receiver doesn't really need it. There's a fine balance here that requires fine judgment and wisdom. I don't think that kind of wisdom possible at a national level in a country of 330 million. It is something that is much better done at the community level and family level. A local community understands the people and issues involved.

Third, when forming cooperative arrangements and assigning people to run them, we cannot give those people too much power. Power corrupts.

IMO, the problems facing America cannot be fixed until we do a few things that ameliorate corruption and bad incentives. One such thing would be term limits. House of reps limited to three terms (6 years), Senate limited to two terms (12 years). Outlaw political parties. Outlaw campaign donations of any kind. Each candidate receives the same amount of money for campaign expenses from a public fund. Candidates post their position statements on the same public forums. Debates are not run by media agencies. They are held on the public forum ( a cable TV channel? Live stream?) and are long multi-day events. The people asking the questions are not elite media personalities. Rather they are citizens from all walks of life randomly selected from a vetted pool of applicants. there's a few ideas.

All of that would eliminate career grifters from getting into the seats of power. It would discourage party group think. It would encourage talented dedicated people to serve their country. Power could never consolidate.

Further, I would eliminate the CIA. The DIA can do whatever it does and better and with more accountability. I would eliminate the FBI and use US marshals for interstate criminal issues.
 
In the period leading up to 9/11, a group of Israelis (non-U.S. citizens) managed to secure “temporary construction” passes to perform work on the 91st floor of Larry “pull it” Silverstein’s leased WTC 1. These passes gave them access to the entire WTC complex. The pretense was an art project called the “B-Thing” and the group is called Gelatin.
After securing their passes, Gelatin proceeded to remove the heavy WTC windows of an office space on the 91st floor and reportedly constructed a prefab balcony outside of the building. Then they stretched “putty” around the windows and filmed it by helicopter as a stunt. The New York Times even felt strangely compelled to cover this story and considered it newsworthy, or a backstory.

HERE IS YOUR ACCESS.
 
Is there any strong evidence about the involvement of Israel, whether they helped in planning or merely had foreknowledge?

There is an 'Israel did 9/11' portion of the Truth Movement that sees them as being behind everything. I can see why, given the power they clearly do yield, however I also think that the CIA must be quite happy for American's to have Mossad based conspiracy theories.

Alex linked to James Corbett's video, which I think contains most of the relevant points. In addition to the high profile 'Dancing Israeli's, there was a substantial spy ring operating in the United States, part of which was seems to have been monitoring Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi (pilots of the Twin Towers flights) in Florida. However they may also have passed this information along to the CIA who I suspect knew all about this anyway.

The most interest thing I learnt whilst doing the series with Adam about the supposed pilot of Flight 93 (the one that crashed in Shanksville) Ziad Jarrah. Jarrah is an unlikely terrorist as he wasn't particularly religious. For this reason documentaries on the Hamburg Cell (the group containing Atta and al-Shehhi) have focused on him as a case study in radicalisation. The interesting thing is that several years after 9/11, Jarrah's uncle was outed as an Israeli spy.

Overall I'd say there is more evidence for direct Saudi State involvement, with them being caught red handed financing two of the hijackers.

There is another way of looking at this question however. We could say that the whole ideology of the War on Terror started at something called the Jerusalem Conference, effectively hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu back in 1979. This is also the year that an international effort to support radical Islam in Afghanistan began. If we take a conspiratorial view then it might be more accurate then to see 9/11 as arising out of an intelligence network that transcends national boundaries.
 
I think this is an age old problem and there are no easy answers.

Undoubtedly. Which in part is why I think we need to be cautious in casting those with different answers in negative terms.

First, there is the issue of defining who is unable to help themselves and needs assistance.

No easy answer - agreed. But surely, in a rich country, the definition can be broader than in a poor country?

[Service/help to others] is [...] very damaging to receivers that don't truly need it. It s also damaging to the giver if the receiver doesn't really need it.

This is perhaps one of those philosophical differences between the left and the right. Why would helping somebody for pure motives, regardless of need, be damaging, to either the helper or the helped? And especially if the helper is made aware of the risk in advance?

Third, when forming cooperative arrangements and assigning people to run them, we cannot give those people too much power. Power corrupts.

That's sensible. I think most modern leftists would agree with you there.

there's a few ideas.

They, too, seem sensible. My own idea is direct democracy. We have the internet: why not harness it? The concept would be that every decision currently made by the legislature/executive is ultimately made by the people (one person, one vote), but that votes would be - by default - delegated to elected representatives (or to any preferred delegate).

Further, I would eliminate the CIA. The DIA can do whatever it does and better and with more accountability. I would eliminate the FBI and use US marshals for interstate criminal issues.

Though I am not all that familiar with the CIA/FBI, I have a general sense of the abuse to which they have been put, so would (from an admittedly uneducated position) endorse your proposal.
 
Overall I'd say there is more evidence for direct Saudi State involvement, with them being caught red handed financing two of the hijackers.

This is really good to see Richard.
People asking all sorts of honest questions and being given informed honest answers. That’s all many so called Conspiracy Theorists want to be able to do imo.
 
In the period leading up to 9/11, a group of Israelis (non-U.S. citizens) managed to secure “temporary construction” passes to perform work on the 91st floor of Larry “pull it” Silverstein’s leased WTC 1. These passes gave them access to the entire WTC complex. The pretense was an art project called the “B-Thing” and the group is called Gelatin.
After securing their passes, Gelatin proceeded to remove the heavy WTC windows of an office space on the 91st floor and reportedly constructed a prefab balcony outside of the building. Then they stretched “putty” around the windows and filmed it by helicopter as a stunt. The New York Times even felt strangely compelled to cover this story and considered it newsworthy, or a backstory.

HERE IS YOUR ACCESS.

This is not accurate. The Gelatin B artists arent even Israeli, they are Austrian.

 
This is perhaps one of those philosophical differences between the left and the right. Why would helping somebody for pure motives, regardless of need, be damaging, to either the helper or the helped? And especially if the helper is made aware of the risk in advance?.

My responses to your other points are more appropriate to the politics thread. This one (above) being spiritual in nature, I'll address here. Basically, enabling someone to be dependent weakens them. It stunts their growth.

On the giver's side of the coin, it brings about a false sense of righteousness. The giver is actually enslaving the recipient.
 
Adam,
Having read this ( https://medium.com/@adamfitzgerald_5924/the-9-11-problem-62cab90d6084 ) written by you, I see we are in agreement that the "trutherism" movement is BS.

What is your position? You think that "the CIA" allowed the attack to happen, or orchestrated it? is that what you're saying?

IMO, that is just a more subtle sophisticated trutherism. I call BS on it. I can assure you that if it were true, it would have been stopped before it happened. If somehow, just somehow, some rogue(s) managed to make it happen, then those people would be dead shortly thereafter. Again, you do not understand the dedication and patriotism that courses through the agency.

The CIA was highly focused on the Soviet Union for most of its history. After 1991 the raison d'etre of the CIA waned. HUMINT was cut way back. Remaining case officers had been not trained outside of Soviet studies. They did not comprehend the jihadist mindset. If some were playing with jihadists, trying to recruit them, the case officers got burned. They just didn't get it. They were used to enemy agents being exposed to Western lifestyle and wanting more. They could not understand that the jihadist cannot be flipped.

They had worked a little bit with these people before, in Afghanistan, against the Soviets. They assumed they could work with them for other purposes. Again, you have to get into the mindset to understand how this could happen. There were no MENA experts in the agency (though a couple were at the DIA in the 80s and early 90s). There were no Arab language experts. Nothing. And the CIA wasn't interested in developing such resources either.

Another screw-up was Able Danger. F'ing lawyers blocked action. Lawyers. That was the DIA providing analysis that there were terrorists in the country, who some were (Atta being one). Guess the DIA didn't get the message from the CIA that there needed to be an attack against Americans.

As an aside, note that there are people running for the highest offices now that want open borders. Ok? Just let anyone in? Are you going to say that the Democrats are all in league with terrorists? Because when one gets in (IMO, they're already here) across the Southern border and raises hell, the Democrats could have stopped it, right? Lawyers and politicians are idiots.

There was no conspiring between the CIA and jihadists to create 911. It was all screw-ups.

That is my position.

Could you please plainly state your position and why you see it that way? Thank you
 
Last edited:
Richard,
You were correct to say we've (or at least i've) gone off the deep end. I am struggling daily; treading water in the deep end of the pool but since the scales have fallen from my eyes on my own personal road to Damascus i refuse to go back to the safety of the shallow end.

So let me start by saying i agree with you 100% about The Lone Gunmen.

Your analysis of Back to the Future really excites me. You are 90% there my man. By 90% there i mean to only say you are seeing this the way i did and asking the same questions i was when I first saw the Back to the Future Predicts 9/11 video a few years back. Truthfully havent been the same since. I was shaken to my very core that one of the highest grossing movie franchises of my lifetime (which means EVERYONE has seen it), was a triology of films about TIME TRAVEL which accuretly predicted the single most profound event of my lifetime, Sept. 11th. I needed to look into this myself.

I have since watched the Back to the Future films dozens of times over the past few years, even dissecting the first of the three almost frame by frame. What i have found is astonishing. I have discovered that a pop culture icon (the Back to the F uture movies) tells us how pop culture and media are used to influence the population possibly affecting future events. If you watch close enough you will see the progressive influence of pop culture as promoted through television, radio, music and film over the span of the last 130 years, most especially in the United States, spelled out in the movies. A key to this for me was realizing that nearly everytime Marty time travels he and the Delorean touch film. In the Twin Pines Mall parking lot Marty jumps back in time to 1955 just before the Delorean smashes through 1980's photo devoloping booth. To travel back to 1985 from 1955 Marty drives the DeLorean on a crash corse with a movie theatre (which is playing a film staring Ronald Regan which will be useful knowledge as you read on). In the third film to send Marty to 1885 a 1955 version of Doc chooses a drive-in movie theatre as the perfect spot to jump back in time.

The films show how television was used to put a young handsome man, his beautiful wife and his "fairy tale" life in the white house in the early 60's. It shows how movies and media influenced the young impressionable minds of the baby boomer generation to elect an actor to be the leader of the free world, a thought which was so upsurd it would have been laughable a generation earlier. Just as 1955 Doc Brown literally LOL'ed and asked "Ha! The actor??" when Marty informed him Ronald Regan was the President of the United States in 1985. Back to the future also predicts the coming tragedy of 9/11 and even a crude misogynistic casino owning Donald Trump https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...he-future-writer-biff-is-donald-trump-190408/
Ooops i mean Biff Tannon as being the big man in charge in a dystopian alternate timeline.

There is sooooo much more but for "times's" (ha! See what i did there!) sake i will leave it at that for now. But i did want to answer a few questions you posed because i think they are the right questions to be asking and deserve my best shot trying to answer them (trying being the operative word there). Yes, i believe there a secret order that has foreknowledge of world events years in advance and symbolises them in films. I think there are a variety of ways one might aquire such foreknowledge: contact with entities that exist outside of space and time, some ability to be clairvoyant (i have personally had a handful of quite meaningful experiences that i believe could best be described as synchronistic deja vu that i think are very low level gifts of foreknowledge to significiant events in my own life), and/or being involved in the planning and execution of a 9/11 and this planning and execution taking a lot longer than seems reasonable to someone like you or me but perhaps makes sense on a timeline that stretches beyond a single lifetime. (There was so much occult and astrological symbolism surrounding 9/11 that i believe all three methods are in play here.)

And i also believe yes in ten years we could look back on past skeptiko episodes and find significant patterns. I think the universe speaks in patterns and therefore all reality at all levels is patterened. I think the September 11th Novemember 9th examples you brought up are evidance of this phenomenon.

There are suprisingly many more Sept. 11th (United States) November 9th (Germany) significant events in the 20th century.

Construction of the pentagon began on Sept. 11th. The Benghazi incident occured on Sept. 11th. The 911 telephone prefix became a national emergency dial on Sept. 11th forever making the numbers 911 synonymous with emergency and disaster. And as you mentioned Geroge H.W. Bush's Nwo speech was on Sept. 11th.

The Weimer Republic began in Germany on Nov 9th.
Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch Nov 9th.
The Night of Broken Glass (Nazis breaking the glass of all the store fronts ofJewish owned businesses) Nov 9th
Berlin Wall Fall Nov. 9th.

I had a history professor from Germany that used to thell the class, "If its important in 20th century German history it happened on November 9th."

I have not seen the Back to the Future Myths and Archetypes but am looking forward to checking it out. Thanks for mentioning it.

Lastly, i realize i just dropped a lot of insanity on the forum here and apoligize if its too far out there. Like i said i swim WAY in the deep end and i dont think there are many others swimming on the crazy side of the deep end of the reality pool where im at.


Hello Grimy1984,

To speak to your last point first I would say the Skeptiko forum is exactly the place to address this stuff. There aren't many places where there's a sufficient combination of both openness and critical thinking to even attempt a conversation like this.

I don't doubt that lots of films are consciously laced with symbolism and mythological references that are completely wasted on 99.9% of the plebs that go to see them (myself included). I'm sure a lot of people who make these films are both quite brilliant and extremely well educated in these areas. It would be surprising if hidden levels of depth weren't there.

Furthermore, I don't doubt that unconscious symbolism slips in. I'm sure that there are many stories of film makers having things about their creations being pointed out to them that they were completely unaware of.

I also don't doubt the reality of synchronicitus and precognitive experiences. If such things occur in life then we should also expect to see them manifesting in films, showing up as patterns and predictions that are completely inexplicable by chance.

Finally, there also exist coincidences. we must then find a way indicate when this is what we are dealing with, or when it is something more. I can think of two ways to do this, one through meaning and the other through math.

I've just looked up this video of 9/11 predictions in movies. It's mostly a collection of clocks indicating 9 and 11 in one way or another. My main problem with this is we would surely need to establish a baseline to see if this is more than chance. We would need to answer the question, how often should a particular time appear? As people have been actively looking for 9/11s for the past 18 years, we would literally need to start a major project recruiting lots of people to watch films and look for other times on clocks. So it is provable/disprovable through math, but that would be a very hard thing to do.

Turning to meaning, I'm just taking Jung's definition of a synchronicity here as being a meaningful coincidence. So this category would include the numbers 9/11 appearing right when the Twin Towers did or a tall building was destroyed. This seems to occur in a couple of the films (if they're being shown accurately), still it's a stretch from there to proof.

Putting that aside for a moment and returning to the question of mechanism, the possibilities are:

A secretive cabal either plans these events out or sees into the future and has film-makers who for reasons unknown consciously insert this stuff.

Some deep aspect of the mind (or spirits or non-human intelligence) acts through film-makers to insert these symbols in a way they are not conscious of.

This is all coincidence

Most of what is featured in this video I would think must be option 2 or 3. It is impossible for me to believe that each film has a guy working on it who knew years in advance that 9/11 was going to take place and arranged the clocks accordingly.

The difference with you Back to the Future analysis is, that if it is correct, it is impossible to see that it arrises from anything other that symbols being consciously inserted by the films creators. So what does this tell us about Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale? Did they channel this information? Did they consciously know about 9/11 in 1985?

There is also famously a huge plot whole in Back to the Future (there are probably many). Marty has no need to go to the future (2015) to help his son. He's going there anyway, in normal time. All he has to do is make a note of the date his son will get into trouble, wait 30 years and stop him. I'm just mentioning this because the creators were capable of making mistakes like this, or maybe they realised and couldn't think of a way round it. How does this kind of thing sit with their ability to predict the actual future in their films?
 
I highlighted an area i find to be quite believable due in part that the American government has done far worse to people abroad, as opposed to what is happening here in the states with numerous instances where the mass populace of the country are either in prison, poverty or sickly. Im not the least bit shocked that you can have a decent amount of people within our own government (which is quite expansive and multi-faceted)that could seemingly pull off an operation like 9/11. Look at how many CIA operatives that were working inside Alec Station that knew of two Al Qaeda operatives living inside the United States and allowed them to live openly without telling anyone. Thats just a small example.

And, please, let us also recall that the multiple ills that afflict our communities at home are enabled by the policies politicians devise and the bureaucrats who implement them.

While I don't imagine that US authorities actually knew what was going to happen - even the calculated 3,000 odd direct deaths and who knows how many deaths that were, as it were, collateral damage don't amount to a hit of beans in the calculations of those who presume to control our destinies. Its all calculation, choice or lack of imagination.

Our 'leaders' presume the right to calculate the 'sacrifices' to be made in pursuit of larger goals 'in the national interest' - and it is intriguing how often the 'national interest' aligns with the ambitions of the rich and power and never with the concerns of the poor and oppressed. The rich and powerful are never asked to 'sacrifice' for the sake of the nation to the extent that the poor are.

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but the fact that Iraq was the immediate target post 9/11 smacks of calculated forethought. What better pretext than alleging connection with a vile act?
 
Most of what is featured in this video I would think must be option 2 or 3. It is impossible for me to believe that each film has a guy working on it who knew years in advance that 9/11 was going to take place and arranged the clocks accordingly.

There is the added thing that 9 and 11 are both significant numbers in their own right, so they might be combined. The trouble with the clock notion is that 10:45 or 8:50 can't really be 9:11 since the clock hands should not be exactly on the numbers.

Also, if we scanned all the movies with scenes with clocks, what percentage would show the 9/11 combo? Watching movies after 9/11 might make us more open to seeing the 9/11 combo. If movie scenes were more likely shot between 10:00 and 16:00 the 10:45 combo is likely to be more often displayed than number combos before 10:00 and after 16:00. I have no idea if this is the case - just noting it is a factor to be reckoned with.

In any case, even if there is a high number of movie scenes showing 9/11 comes on clocks we have to remember that if there is meaning here it would not be uniquely a case of clock faces relating to a date. I am plagued by 11:11. I am aware that the first armistice day was 11:11:11:2018. But that makes sense only with a digital clock, which can show 11:11:11 - invented well after 1918 (10) - noting that in 2018 we could have had 11:11:11:11. [I missed that - bugger!].

Outside the US 9/11 is rendered as 11/9 and the full date gives us 9+11+2001 = 23 = 5. If you are going to see symbols in numbers it is important not to muck around with them for convenience. 9/11 is a convenient way of rendering a date because we know the implications - like 12/25 or 7/4 - but you don't see them often.

Although 9/11 rolls off the tongue easily I don't see anything remarkable about it. It is a date indelibly imprinted on the US psyche as an artefact of media. What does 12/7 mean to you? How many US readers instantly thought Pearl Harbour - 12/7/1941 (25 = 7)?

I would suggest that 9/11 is an artefact of its times - and you will see 9 and 11 together because there will be many 9 and 11 combinations inner history. But are they linked?
 
I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but the fact that Iraq was the immediate target post 9/11 smacks of calculated forethought. What better pretext than alleging connection with a vile act?

You mean you’re not convinced by Colin Powell’s sitting before he UN with all of his “evidence?” Lol.

I get what you’re saying. We could see it the way you suggest. But, the invasion of Iraq post 9-11 might also have been a simple seizing of an opportunity. Perhaps they wanted to go in and figured that the current sociopolitical environment of the US (due to 9-11) was the perfect backdrop for convincing the public of the necessity of war.



Is it surprising to anybody here that, in finding no “smoking gun” evidence, that the US government didn’t fake evidence of some sort after arriving in Iraq and finding none? Presumably they posses the capability to do such a thing. And they’ve done similar things in the past in using “false flags” as pretexts for war. The lack of any smoking gun evidence cost them a lot of perceived credibility in the eyes of the world. There had to have been some discussion on some level of doing something like this? Or maybe not, I don’t know. If there was, perhaps it was considered too risky. If the world were to see the ruse, there would then be no credibility left in the eyes of the world.
 
You mean you’re not convinced by Colin Powell’s sitting before he UN with all of his “evidence?” Lol.

I get what you’re saying. We could see it the way you suggest. But, the invasion of Iraq post 9-11 might also have been a simple seizing of an opportunity. Perhaps they wanted to go in and figured that the current sociopolitical environment of the US (due to 9-11) was the perfect backdrop for convincing the public of the necessity of war.



Is it surprising to anybody here that, in finding no “smoking gun” evidence, that the US government didn’t fake evidence of some sort after arriving in Iraq and finding none? Presumably they posses the capability to do such a thing. And they’ve done similar things in the past in using “false flags” as pretexts for war. The lack of any smoking gun evidence cost them a lot of perceived credibility in the eyes of the world. There had to have been some discussion on some level of doing something like this? Or maybe not, I don’t know. If there was, perhaps it was considered too risky. If the world were to see the ruse, there would then be no credibility left in the eyes of the world.

Wormwood,
IMO, no WMD were planted in Iraq because, as I keep trying to explain, it is very difficult to pull off a conspiracy. Inspectors had been all over Iraq. Soldiers would have to plant the stuff where the inspectors hadn't been. The soldiers could talk about it. The Iraqis could complain and say that there had never been WMD wherever it was planted. Lower level conspirators themselves could talk about it. They could use it as leverage/blackmail over other conspirators.

It's one thing to get up in front of a camera and lie about WMD. When it's not found, you can enjoy plausible deniability. "Well our best intelligence said there was WMD". It's another thing entirely to plant large amounts of evidence, to blow up buildings and that sort of thing, involving teams of people that could spill the beans and/or hold it over you.

IMO, in addition to plausible deniability, the liars thought they would probably find at least some WMD - even if old - that they could hold up. A bit of a gamble. I think they were amazed that nothing but some old decayed chemicals were found.

There are a lot of America haters on Skeptiko. They believe a lot of crap and focus like a laser on the blemishes and warts. Very negative people. The conspiracy theories just reinforce the hatred that has been put in their heads and hearts. Mostly Brits and Aussies. I think it's like penis envy.
 
You mean you’re not convinced by Colin Powell’s sitting before he UN with all of his “evidence?” Lol.

I get what you’re saying. We could see it the way you suggest. But, the invasion of Iraq post 9-11 might also have been a simple seizing of an opportunity. Perhaps they wanted to go in and figured that the current sociopolitical environment of the US (due to 9-11) was the perfect backdrop for convincing the public of the necessity of war.

Is it surprising to anybody here that, in finding no “smoking gun” evidence, that the US government didn’t fake evidence of some sort after arriving in Iraq and finding none? Presumably they posses the capability to do such a thing. And they’ve done similar things in the past in using “false flags” as pretexts for war. The lack of any smoking gun evidence cost them a lot of perceived credibility in the eyes of the world. There had to have been some discussion on some level of doing something like this? Or maybe not, I don’t know. If there was, perhaps it was considered too risky. If the world were to see the ruse, there would then be no credibility left in the eyes of the world.

The WMD argument was a farce. It was debunked real time by global experts - who were proven right. The 3 Amigos - Bush, Blair and Howard cobbled together an absurd 'coalition of the willing' [to be manipulated and duped] to perpetrate the crime of invading a sovereign country that had committed no offence against any of the invading nations. That is not open to dispute.

The US used the smoke screen [toxic as it was] of 9/11 to engage in an act of calculated and unprovoked aggression against a nation to further geo-political and economic objectives. Did the same interests allow a preventable catastrophe from happening? Compared to the horror visited upon Iraq with no evident conscience, it is not hard to imagine that they would have. Those interests acted with absolute disregard for human life and values - and sought only the fulfilment of a political and economic agenda.
 
There are a lot of America haters on Skeptiko. They believe a lot of crap and focus like a laser on the blemishes and warts. Very negative people. The conspiracy theories just reinforce the hatred that has been put in their heads and hearts. Mostly Brits and Aussies. I think it's like penis envy.

Eric we are not American haters. You just don't get it. We like rational and ethical Americans. Trust me, we are not envious of Americans we consider to be monstrous dicks. As I have said to you before, we view the US as a potentially dangerous influence in the world. That's not for you to judge, but take on board. Right at the moment your status is tanking, sinking like the evening sun. Now you may not like that - but you don't sit where we do and you don't see what we see - and being rude about it isn't going to change a thing.

Maybe its a good thing that the absurd conceit that the US is "the leader of the free world" is rapidly becoming a [not so] fond memory. Maybe its not unlike Brexit - we will not know until it is done. Perhaps a newly isolationist [America first] passion is a good thing for the rest of us too. Just happens that only the US and assorted tyrants agree - and the rest of us do not - for now. We would like the US to play in the same sandpit but not be such a borish dick - and maybe led by somebody not quite so mad [from our perspective].

You are entirely free to your opinion on this matter - but your venom should be focused on the passionate opponents you have in your own country and not expended on people who observe what you guys are up to with fascination and growing alarm. Your opinion of us does not matter at all. Our opinion of you does. You are armed to the teeth and dangerous - mercifully, for now, mostly to yourselves. And if you keep on your isolationist path that will simply intensify - and only Canada and Mexico will feel threatened - leaving the rest of us alone. Go for it!
 
Eric we are not American haters. You just don't get it. We like rational and ethical Americans. Trust me, we are not envious of Americans we consider to be monstrous dicks. As I have said to you before, we view the US as a potentially dangerous influence in the world. That's not for you to judge, but take on board. Right at the moment your status is tanking, sinking like the evening sun. Now you may not like that - but you don't sit where we do and you don't see what we see - and being rude about it isn't going to change a thing.

Maybe its a good thing that the absurd conceit that the US is "the leader of the free world" is rapidly becoming a [not so] fond memory. Maybe its not unlike Brexit - we will not know until it is done. Perhaps a newly isolationist [America first] passion is a good thing for the rest of us too. Just happens that only the US and assorted tyrants agree - and the rest of us do not - for now. We would like the US to play in the same sandpit but not be such a borish dick - and maybe led by somebody not quite so mad [from our perspective].

You are entirely free to your opinion on this matter - but your venom should be focused on the passionate opponents you have in your own country and not expended on people who observe what you guys are up to with fascination and growing alarm. Your opinion of us does not matter at all. Our opinion of you does. You are armed to the teeth and dangerous - mercifully, for now, mostly to yourselves. And if you keep on your isolationist path that will simply intensify - and only Canada and Mexico will feel threatened - leaving the rest of us alone. Go for it!

Well said. Not agreeing with Eric immediately makes you an "American Hater". Thanks Michael.
 
Back
Top